Give me a couple of millions and I will build you a demonstration system.

So the answer is no system exists.

Before radars were invented - and long after that, in many parts of the world even today - the air defence uses human surveillance network. That is, there is a man in a tower, looking around and listening carefully, and when he sees or hears something he makes a call to the command centre that builds the actual situation in the air space using all information it gets.

Today you can replace the man with a machine, in this case a microphone which is much cheaper, more sensitive and more reliable.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

I am not aware of a sound sensor that is able to identify that, but a grid of cheapest available microphones will give remarkable accuracy. If such costs less than a dollar, and military pays ten dollars, then with a cost of one radar you can buy one million sensors, to have 2 sensors per square kilometre over Germany and you still have a couple of hundred thousand left to be hidden over the borders.

So again the answer is no system exists and despite that it apparently will take you no time at all to build and develop this no other nation or company in the world, who faces the very real prospect of facing a stealth aircraft it will struggle to identify on radar, has developed this system it clearly is possible…

There may be a good reason why your country do not have any surveillance network, but that does not mean that others do not have. Russian will certainly not open the details of their air defence to potential aggressors and USA would keep very silent of possible weaknesses of its fighters it wants to sell at a good price.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

I would bet my life for a 1 km resolution, my balls for 100 m, my hair for 10 m and my reputation for 1 m. It is less accurate for high altitudes and more accurate for low altitudes (below radar horizon).

A claim that you can not support nor have you provided any technical or mathematical evidence.

Tracking is a very well-known technique in physics and engineering with ample applications. Existing tracking software can be modified for this purpose in a few days.

You place a set of sensors in a suitable formation. You have a moving target that emits some kind of pulses, like sound, em radiation or surface waves. The sensors measure the pulses, i.e. recording the arrival time and the strength (often the full time profile to get more information). Then you just make best fit for a test track (e.g. maximum likelihood method).

The ultimately limiting factor is the time resolution of the sensor. The 8 kHz sampling rate of the cheapest wireless microphones or telephones would correspond to 0.13 ms or 4 cm with sound speed. The actual resolution may be worse due to variations in sound speed due to temperature and pressure and wind, reflections and error in the position of the microphone itself. Some of that can be mostly eliminated with accurate environmental measurements or statistics, i.e. combining the data of multiple sensors. The final resolution depends on the configuration of your system, number of sensors, quality of the microphone and amount of real-time environmental measurements made.

Reaching sub metre accuracy for the track of a low-flying supersonic aircraft is completely reasonable. The largest uncertainty is caused by the random movements of the plane after the last tracked point.

It is also possible to distinguish separately all aircraft in a formation. That may be challenging for a radar. With a good sound analysis system you can define the type of the plane, at least the engine and its thrust and get some hint of its weight.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

With the sonic boom, we will talk about centimetres, at least low altitudes. That is enough to hit it with one bullet, if it just goes straight ahead (assuming a gun with such an accuracy in the right place, not always possible). How fast and often you turn when supercuising?

Yimby, when the respective airframe is travelling towards you at a speed faster than the speed of sound, how do you expect to identify where it is before it reaches you?

First, how do you know where I am to drop the bomb in my head?Second, the signal can be transmitted wirelessly or wired almost with the speed of light from the most remote corner of the sensor net which can be thousands of kilometres away. I do not have to wait that the sound reaches me.

Ozair wrote:

Yes airframes turn when they are going supersonic, whether supercruising or using burner…

If I force you to make continuous random turns I make you to lose your energy. Such movements may help the radar detection also as you cannot keep in the most optimal attitude for radar reflectivity.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

The time delay from highest altitudes may be up to a minute. Rotating radars also have a limited time delay, up to 15 seconds typically. Of course, you can lift the sensors to 15 km if you want, though you may not be able to make a dense and symmetric grid in the air.

It keeps getting better… So given the quality of a radar track from an EW radar, which will provide you with a hit every 10-15 seconds at the speed of light, is so low you cannot use it to cue weapons, apparently a sound sensor that has a delay of one minute is satisfactory?

That is the worst case, a high flying plane. High-flying fighters are rather good targets for radars as there is less background.We never rely on one sensor system but always combine all available information.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Note that the sound sensors are practically undestroyable and unjammable.

Of course no one has ever invented a system that outputs audio noise into the spectrum…

Here we agree, though theoretically that is possible.

Ozair wrote:

Yimby, when you want to have an intelligent, logical and fact based discussion on this I will participate. If you want to enter fantasy land, make claims that are not only illogical but completely technically unsupported I have better things to do with my time.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, please do not throw arrogant insults.

Modern radars are installed on a heavy vehicle (8x8 truck). They cannot operate in the run but can be moved quickly. Indeed only a fraction of radars will be operative all the time as most of them will be in the move or shut down. Some very long range OTH radars may be fixed, though. Radar stations also have always some self-defense, sometimes even against missiles.

Except the RRP-117, which was mentioned earlier, is a static radar; it is not mounted on a truck.

Also GM406 selected by the German is fixed, but GM403 and GM200 are mobile. GM403 can be operational in 30 mins, GM200 in 15 mins.The German may have a reason for fixed radars.

ThePointblank wrote:

The likelihood of a SAM site suddenly going active and surprising the aircraft right above is fairly minimal, and aircraft like the F-35 had advanced sensors that can immediately detect the radar emissions of a radar, scan the ground with its own ground mapping radar and EO/IR sensors to detect hidden ground targets, detect & categorize missile launches and weapons fire from the ground, and alert the pilot so he/she can take appropriate action.

Bottom line is that it will take a wilfully ignorant pilot to be surprised by the enemy's sudden appearance.

The SAM sites are (or should be) designed exactly to surprise the aircraft.

You are quite optimistic that a F-35 can detect everything within its environment while remaining undetected.

Do you know any true war where the pilots have not been surprised by the enemy's sudden appearance?

In reality operational requirements for the 2030-2050 time frame are leading. Looking at the European situation and the conflicts of the last 25 yrs, endurance, stealth, complexity and network centric would be the main drivers behind a specification.

The world is changing. People are on the move looking for safety / a future for their families, we will get out of oil, constructed nations break up, super powers aren't what / who they used/hoped to be. This all means things will get tense / go wrong now and then.

It seems for now Germany & France have taken the lead. Other nations are trying to get a share. I would assume the germans have learned their lessons and keep it it simple. No 12 different versions from 8 different countries demanding "share". I think Rafale (single nation, 1 prime customer) vs Eurofighter (multi nation, 3 prime customers) showed keeping focus early on, gives the opportunity to adjust to changing requirements, allow upgrades, while keeping cost / delays under control.

Keejie wrote-In reality operational requirements for the 2030-2050 time frame are leading. Looking at the European situation and the conflicts of the last 25 yrs, endurance, stealth, complexity and network centric would be the main drivers behind a specification.

You just defined the F35

Keejie wrote-The world is changing. People are on the move looking for safety / a future for their families, we will get out of oil, constructed nations break up, super powers aren't what / who they used/hoped to be. This all means things will get tense / go wrong now and then.

Exactly! If I were a defense planner and diplomat in the West I'd be looking to the 17th and 17th Century history books in order to avoid massive conflicts this century.. France felt so threatened being surrounded by Austria, Spain and England that is allied with the Turks in one of the succession wars. I point this out just to highlight what can go wrong.

There may be a good reason why your country do not have any surveillance network, but that does not mean that others do not have.

What does my country have to do with the physics of hearing sound?

YIMBY wrote:

Russian will certainly not open the details of their air defence to potential aggressors and USA would keep very silent of possible weaknesses of its fighters it wants to sell at a good price.

That has nothing to do with your claim.

YIMBY wrote:

Tracking is a very well-known technique in physics and engineering with ample applications. Existing tracking software can be modified for this purpose in a few days.

You place a set of sensors in a suitable formation. You have a moving target that emits some kind of pulses, like sound, em radiation or surface waves. The sensors measure the pulses, i.e. recording the arrival time and the strength (often the full time profile to get more information). Then you just make best fit for a test track (e.g. maximum likelihood method).

The ultimately limiting factor is the time resolution of the sensor. The 8 kHz sampling rate of the cheapest wireless microphones or telephones would correspond to 0.13 ms or 4 cm with sound speed. The actual resolution may be worse due to variations in sound speed due to temperature and pressure and wind, reflections and error in the position of the microphone itself. Some of that can be mostly eliminated with accurate environmental measurements or statistics, i.e. combining the data of multiple sensors. The final resolution depends on the configuration of your system, number of sensors, quality of the microphone and amount of real-time environmental measurements made.

Reaching sub metre accuracy for the track of a low-flying supersonic aircraft is completely reasonable. The largest uncertainty is caused by the random movements of the plane after the last tracked point.

It is also possible to distinguish separately all aircraft in a formation. That may be challenging for a radar. With a good sound analysis system you can define the type of the plane, at least the engine and its thrust and get some hint of its weight.

Yimby, what you have stated is simply not true and I will show you why. Sound attenuates which means it loses power over distance. What the above shows us is that the intensity of the sound decreases per the inverse square law.

So the question becomes how do you intend to distinguish the sounds of a jet, which given military jets fly often and we don’t hear them at any of the distances you claim, above the volume of regular life? Even at 10kms the sound of human conversation is approximately the same volume as an F-35 at mil power. At 10kms away you have to wait half a minute for the sound to arrive. At 50kms away you have to wait almost two and a half minutes and at 100kms away you have to wait 4.75 minutes for the sound to arrive. Those are tactically worthless timeframes because in 30 seconds a fighter jet flying at M0.8 will travel 8km, so when the sound arrives at the 10km distance to the sensor the jet will have since moved 8km…

How would you deal with refraction, reflection and diffraction of sound waves. When looking at the distances you are considering how do you know an echo is not a distant aircraft on another bearing and not an echo from the first?

A real world example of how difficult this is can be seen by the Boomerang III shot detection technology used by ground troops, http://milcom-security.com/wp-content/uploads/BoomerangGeneral-102010-5.pdfThe system has a bearing error of 2.5 degrees, a range error of +-10% and an elevation error of 2.5% for typical assault and sniper rifles which fire supersonic rounds. Note the system does not work with subsonic rounds because the sensitivity required is too great. That 2.5 degree inaccuracy translates at 10kms to 400m and 1 km out on range. At 50kms that bearing inaccuracy translates to 2km in bearing and 5km out in range, if you can hear the sound as the system only works for rounds fired within 30 meters of the sensor.

YIMBY wrote:

Here we agree, though theoretically that is possible.

I was being sarcastic. Militaries have been jamming sound for a 100+ years.

YIMBY wrote:

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, please do not throw arrogant insults.

Insulting you was not my intent, demonstrating the logical failure of your concept was and my point still stands.

Scientist can distinguish the signal of gravitational wave from colliding stars in another galaxy from the background of earthquakes, traffic, ocean waves, etc, the signal of a planet from another solar system, the signal of a probe in Saturn, the signal of a neutrino from the background of cosmic rays and natural radioactivity, the signal of higgs from hadron background in a collider etc. Getting the right radio signal into mobile phone in a radionoisy environment is also a non-trivial problem. The military are struggling with observing the radar signal of F-35 (or Su-35) from bees, birds, rain and purposed fake signals and often can achieve that.

Detecting a sound of 57 dB is very trivial compared with those. It is even above the normal natural background. Nature is generally quite quiet, and the typical sounds like wind can be easily eliminated. It is possible to distinguish a signal far below the background noise level if you know what to do i.e. you know what signal to look for and can recognize the typical background sources.

I was mostly thinking to detect the low lying planes that are harder for radars, but your numbers convince me that maximum service ceiling is no problem (though the numbers may be different due to thin air).

I have seen last decade demonstrated how one can clearly distinguish a single person talking in a crowded hall where everybody talks, using several microphones around the hall. That is a harder problem than distinguishing the jet from sporadic environmental noise.

Also please note that you do not have to wait for the sound to arrive from 200 km (even though it might be detectable). You can have your sound detectors every 1 km or denser in critical locations. I am not talking about a single direction-sensitive microphone but a mesh of several cheap omnidirectional microphones. Of course a more expensive direction sensitive sensor with frequency analysers etc would make it more accurate, and if the most expensive task is the manual installation process you may even want to invest more on the sensor to balance the costs.Making a Natowide or EU-wide network might be politically possible and would help civil aviation and security, too, if it can distinguish private drones etc (which may require additional sensitivity, though).

You can also easily place the sensors on your enemy's territory. It can be disguised as whatever natural or artificial object and is very hard to find, and then recognize. Who knows what has been done already? During the cold war we joked that the most important exportware of the Soviet Union was microphones, and I do not believe the they have forgotten those traditions. United States have also shown outrageous boldness by listening to Angela Merkel. What the Chinese mobile phones are preprogrammed to do in case of a crisis?

If the great powers show no shame spying the other countries, whether allies or adversaries, Europe could equally well respond by hiding early warning microphones in Russia, and America as well, to show some retaliation.

For jamming sound... if you get the map of all the hidden microphones, I do not think that placing huge loudspeakers beside every one is the smartest idea, but maybe you can try that too, to make fake signals.

Scientist can distinguish the signal of gravitational wave from colliding stars in another galaxy from the background of earthquakes, traffic, ocean waves, etc, the signal of a planet from another solar system, the signal of a probe in Saturn, the signal of a neutrino from the background of cosmic rays and natural radioactivity, the signal of higgs from hadron background in a collider etc. Getting the right radio signal into mobile phone in a radionoisy environment is also a non-trivial problem. The military are struggling with observing the radar signal of F-35 (or Su-35) from bees, birds, rain and purposed fake signals and often can achieve that.

Detecting a sound of 57 dB is very trivial compared with those. It is even above the normal natural background. Nature is generally quite quiet, and the typical sounds like wind can be easily eliminated. It is possible to distinguish a signal far below the background noise level if you know what to do i.e. you know what signal to look for and can recognize the typical background sources.

I was mostly thinking to detect the low lying planes that are harder for radars, but your numbers convince me that maximum service ceiling is no problem (though the numbers may be different due to thin air).

I have seen last decade demonstrated how one can clearly distinguish a single person talking in a crowded hall where everybody talks, using several microphones around the hall. That is a harder problem than distinguishing the jet from sporadic environmental noise.

Also please note that you do not have to wait for the sound to arrive from 200 km (even though it might be detectable). You can have your sound detectors every 1 km or denser in critical locations. I am not talking about a single direction-sensitive microphone but a mesh of several cheap omnidirectional microphones. Of course a more expensive direction sensitive sensor with frequency analysers etc would make it more accurate, and if the most expensive task is the manual installation process you may even want to invest more on the sensor to balance the costs.Making a Natowide or EU-wide network might be politically possible and would help civil aviation and security, too, if it can distinguish private drones etc (which may require additional sensitivity, though).

You can also easily place the sensors on your enemy's territory. It can be disguised as whatever natural or artificial object and is very hard to find, and then recognize. Who knows what has been done already? During the cold war we joked that the most important exportware of the Soviet Union was microphones, and I do not believe the they have forgotten those traditions. United States have also shown outrageous boldness by listening to Angela Merkel. What the Chinese mobile phones are preprogrammed to do in case of a crisis?

If the great powers show no shame spying the other countries, whether allies or adversaries, Europe could equally well respond by hiding early warning microphones in Russia, and America as well, to show some retaliation.

For jamming sound... if you get the map of all the hidden microphones, I do not think that placing huge loudspeakers beside every one is the smartest idea, but maybe you can try that too, to make fake signals.

So the question becomes how do you intend to distinguish the sounds of a jet, which given military jets fly often and we don’t hear them at any of the distances you claim, above the volume of regular life? Even at 10kms the sound of human conversation is approximately the same volume as an F-35 at mil power. At 10kms away you have to wait half a minute for the sound to arrive. At 50kms away you have to wait almost two and a half minutes and at 100kms away you have to wait 4.75 minutes for the sound to arrive. Those are tactically worthless timeframes because in 30 seconds a fighter jet flying at M0.8 will travel 8km, so when the sound arrives at the 10km distance to the sensor the jet will have since moved 8km…

How would you deal with refraction, reflection and diffraction of sound waves. When looking at the distances you are considering how do you know an echo is not a distant aircraft on another bearing and not an echo from the first?

A real world example of how difficult this is can be seen by the Boomerang III shot detection technology used by ground troops, http://milcom-security.com/wp-content/uploads/BoomerangGeneral-102010-5.pdfThe system has a bearing error of 2.5 degrees, a range error of +-10% and an elevation error of 2.5% for typical assault and sniper rifles which fire supersonic rounds. Note the system does not work with subsonic rounds because the sensitivity required is too great. That 2.5 degree inaccuracy translates at 10kms to 400m and 1 km out on range. At 50kms that bearing inaccuracy translates to 2km in bearing and 5km out in range, if you can hear the sound as the system only works for rounds fired within 30 meters of the sensor.

Ok what if you install microphones everywhere, the US has sprinkled noise detectors all through the oceans to track the oppositions subs, a mircophone which is land based would be significantly cheaper than an undersea device, you could install thousands of them everywhere, power pilons, buildings, bridges, cell towers, mountain tops, tall trees with enough computing power and the sound being collected from many devices it should be relatively simple to locate and track a stealth aircraft. It would also be pretty difficult to locate and destroy all the mircophones, a country the size of Germany could be covered with thousands of microphones.

He also voiced support for the development of a German-Franco 6th generation fighter. My opinion is that purchasing f-35 types and investing in the development of 6th gen technology are two opposing ideas but Müllner is not the sharpest tool in the box.

It is not. The French/German project would replace the EF/Rafale starting around 2035-40, the F-35 would replace the Tornado around 2025.

It is. Your scenario doesn’t make sense fiscally unless the F-35 is incapable of replacing the Eurofighter in Germany in its main role. And while the Eurofighter is technologically better suited for quick reaction alert and Baltic politicing, the F-35 could do that job as well.

The Germans, French and Brits seem – for now anyway – wedded to the idea of multiple-type fleets. Why, I do not know, but if I had to hazard a guess, it would be for autonomy and/or a hedge in case one type is grounded for unforeseen reasons (fleetwide safety stand down or similar). So FCAS, even if only marginally different from JSF in capability terms, fills a European niche. Probably won't be as cost effective, and will have a production no bigger than the Tornado's, but there are reasons why FCAS doesn't die with an F-35 buy.

It is. Your scenario doesn’t make sense fiscally unless the F-35 is incapable of replacing the Eurofighter in Germany in its main role. And while the Eurofighter is technologically better suited for quick reaction alert and Baltic politicing, the F-35 could do that job as well.

I don’t see how buying the F-35 would not kill the FCAS.

It makes sense in a similar way to the RAAF acquisition of the SH that replaced the F-111. When the RAAF became the sole operator of the F-111 it became prohibitively expensive to sustain and the acquisition of the SH was essentially cost neutral. A similar move by the Germans would allow them to not have to rush any new European fighter into service.The other issue is that a Tornado beyond 2025 is not a viable capability for the potential scenarios that Germany may need it for.

angad84 wrote:

So FCAS, even if only marginally different from JSF in capability terms, fills a European niche. Probably won't be as cost effective, and will have a production no bigger than the Tornado's, but there are reasons why FCAS doesn't die with an F-35 buy.

People also keep forgetting that FCAS is not a single piece of equipment, it is a system of systems designed to deliver a broad capability.

seahawk wrote:

There is not even a consortium set-up to built or design it, so this is not even guess work.

And no actual requirements. The whole agreement so far surrounds investigating the feasibility of a joint design and won't come back until mid 2018 at the earliest.

It is not. The French/German project would replace the EF/Rafale starting around 2035-40, the F-35 would replace the Tornado around 2025.

It is. Your scenario doesn’t make sense fiscally unless the F-35 is incapable of replacing the Eurofighter in Germany in its main role. And while the Eurofighter is technologically better suited for quick reaction alert and Baltic politicing, the F-35 could do that job as well.

I don’t see how buying the F-35 would not kill the FCAS.

The EF fleet has a lot of service life left, the Tornado does not. And the Luftwaffe has a clear preference for a 2 type fleet. Which imho is not wrong if you look at services lives of 40+ years for fighters today, so you get new tech into the fleet roughly when the other type reaches the second half of its service life and starts to become long in the tooth.

Some more info available. Seems the F-35 is a benchmark for an interim and Germany believes that a future European fighter, a fifth generation plus (another term…), will not replace the Eurofighter until 2045. So on timeframes that means an IOC of 2040.

What we can see though is Germany believes that a replacement for the Tornado is necessary and likely to occur. The report below also indicates that, as we know from earlier in the thread, that the SH and F-15 were also considered, as well as a potential tranche 4 Eurofighter.

Speaking at the same conference, the chief of staff of the German Air Force (GAF) Lt. Gen. Karl Muellner said that the service is seeking a replacement for its Tornado strike fleet. With those jets due to be phased out in 2030, a successor would have to enter service from 2025. “We are considering several candidates, with the capability of the F-35 as the benchmark.”

Muellner did not specify the other candidates, but AIN has learned from other sources that the GAF has been considering the Boeing F-15 Strike Eagle, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, and even a so-called Tranche 4 version of the Eurofighter. However, according to the requirements for the new fighter that Muellner listed in his conference presentation, the F-35 seems to be the key contender. The Luftwaffe chief said the new acquisition “must be survivable in a contested environment through low-observability by radar and infrared signature; have low emissions; offer stand-off capability with its sensors and weapons; and be capable of sensor fusion.The mission set would include offensive counter-air; air interdiction; close air support; suppression of enemy air defenses; tactical reconnaissance; electronic combat; and nuclear deterrence, Muellner added. AIN believes that the last mission is a reference to the U.S. B61 nuclear free-fall bomb, which can be carried by the Tornado under NATO nuclear-release deterrence doctrine. An updated version of the B61 is due to be integrated on the F-35. “If we bought the F-35,” Muellner continued, “it would fulfill our requirement, strengthen interoperability because other NATO members are acquiring it and make a contribution to balancing our trade surplus with the U.S.”Muellner was asked whether the GAF’s plan was contrary to last year’s announcement by the leaders of France and Germany that they would jointly develop a new combat aircraft. He said that this would be a longer-term project, to replace the Eurofighter from 2045 with a “Fifth Generation-Plus” solution. This aircraft would offer much greater automation, make use of artificial intelligence and offer cyber capabilities. “We must certainly keep the industrial knowledge and the jobs in Europe,” he added.

Some more info available. Seems the F-35 is a benchmark for an interim and Germany believes that a future European fighter, a fifth generation plus (another term…), will not replace the Eurofighter until 2045. So on timeframes that means an IOC of 2040.

What we can see though is Germany believes that a replacement for the Tornado is necessary and likely to occur. The report below also indicates that, as we know from earlier in the thread, that the SH and F-15 were also considered, as well as a potential tranche 4 Eurofighter.

Speaking at the same conference, the chief of staff of the German Air Force (GAF) Lt. Gen. Karl Muellner said that the service is seeking a replacement for its Tornado strike fleet. With those jets due to be phased out in 2030, a successor would have to enter service from 2025. “We are considering several candidates, with the capability of the F-35 as the benchmark.”

Muellner did not specify the other candidates, but AIN has learned from other sources that the GAF has been considering the Boeing F-15 Strike Eagle, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, and even a so-called Tranche 4 version of the Eurofighter. However, according to the requirements for the new fighter that Muellner listed in his conference presentation, the F-35 seems to be the key contender. The Luftwaffe chief said the new acquisition “must be survivable in a contested environment through low-observability by radar and infrared signature; have low emissions; offer stand-off capability with its sensors and weapons; and be capable of sensor fusion.The mission set would include offensive counter-air; air interdiction; close air support; suppression of enemy air defenses; tactical reconnaissance; electronic combat; and nuclear deterrence, Muellner added. AIN believes that the last mission is a reference to the U.S. B61 nuclear free-fall bomb, which can be carried by the Tornado under NATO nuclear-release deterrence doctrine. An updated version of the B61 is due to be integrated on the F-35. “If we bought the F-35,” Muellner continued, “it would fulfill our requirement, strengthen interoperability because other NATO members are acquiring it and make a contribution to balancing our trade surplus with the U.S.”Muellner was asked whether the GAF’s plan was contrary to last year’s announcement by the leaders of France and Germany that they would jointly develop a new combat aircraft. He said that this would be a longer-term project, to replace the Eurofighter from 2045 with a “Fifth Generation-Plus” solution. This aircraft would offer much greater automation, make use of artificial intelligence and offer cyber capabilities. “We must certainly keep the industrial knowledge and the jobs in Europe,” he added.

Thanks for providing this additional source. One quick clarification I'd like to make is that this is Lt. Gen. Müllner speaking, not Germany (because you wrote "Germany believes..."). Müllner is known to see things differently than the ministry. CDU/CSU, FDP, and the Green Party are currently in coalition talks. As a matter of fact, whether or not to pull out of nuclear sharing is supposed to be on the agenda of these negotiations. There is no way that Müllner received authorization from the ministry to make this statement at this time - he also tried (and failed) to stay anonymous.

In the end, Suder and her team will be making the decision about replacing (or not replacing) the Tornados. In my opinion, there is just too much wrong with the F-35 project to sink any tax money into it. The money would have to come from the same pool that would be intended for the FCAS development which is why I believe the F-35 purchase would also stop that project, and create political tension with Macron.

The Tornado replacement budget and the FCAS budget are separate. Simply because the Tornado is running out of service life. The calculations of Airbus to keep the Tornado flying until 2035+ show prohibitive risks and costs while offering only a very modest combat effectiveness after 2030.

I am certain that an off the shelves Tornado replacement will be bought, it might not be F-35 though. If the nuclear mission is dropped there is support for Rafale and Grippen E or even tranche 4 Tiffies.

Thanks for providing this additional source. One quick clarification I'd like to make is that this is Lt. Gen. Müllner speaking, not Germany (because you wrote "Germany believes..."). Müllner is known to see things differently than the ministry. CDU/CSU, FDP, and the Green Party are currently in coalition talks. As a matter of fact, whether or not to pull out of nuclear sharing is supposed to be on the agenda of these negotiations.

Noted although as the Chief of Staff of the German Air Force there has to be some faith in his ability and judgement.

vr773 wrote:

There is no way that Müllner received authorization from the ministry to make this statement at this time - he also tried (and failed) to stay anonymous.

Not quite. Mullner specifically mentioned and highlighted the F-35 in his presentation. Clearly at an international conference you don't try and stay anonymous by talking about the F-35.

vr773 wrote:

In the end, Suder and her team will be making the decision about replacing (or not replacing) the Tornados.

Sure but clearly the German Air Force is looking at replacement of the Tornado and we know they have requested briefings of three US aircraft.

vr773 wrote:

In my opinion, there is just too much wrong with the F-35 project to sink any tax money into it.

Can you identify what you consider wrong with the F-35? The jet is meeting it's service availability targets, cost targets and excelling at exercises.

vr773 wrote:

The money would have to come from the same pool that would be intended for the FCAS development which is why I believe the F-35 purchase would also stop that project, and create political tension with Macron.

FCAS is a long way away, 2040 is the year that keeps getting mentioned. As with the RAAF purchase of the SH to replace the F-111, operating an interim jet could potentially be cost neutral and the acquisition costs would be complete by 2030, long before acquisition of any European jet begins.

If we said the new European fighter was going to cost 30 billion to develop that is shared equally between Germany and France, that is 15 billion from 2022-2040, so potentially less than a billion a year and much of that would likely be post 2030. The German Defence budget is approximately 40 billion per year and any German/Franco jet would likely receive additional outside budget funding (given it is an acknowledged attempt to preserve European technological development and workshare). That doesn't seem too much to ask...

I am certain that an off the shelves Tornado replacement will be bought, it might not be F-35 though. If the nuclear mission is dropped there is support for Rafale and Grippen E or even tranche 4 Tiffies.

A Tranche 4 Eurofighter would be the right option if nuclear sharing went away. Neither Gripen or Rafale offer anything the Eurofighter wouldn't be able to do.

Gripen offers lower operating cots and would also be useful as a Red Air Element in training, while at least having the ability to carry a recce pod and an AShM.

The introduction of a whole new fleet of aircraft with its associated sustainment and training burden would eliminate any cost savings from operating a Gripen E compared to operating more Eurofighters. In the Canada thread I posted a study done by the Canadian Military that found a cheaper airframe didn't provide cost savings if the missions sets were broadly similar. Plus the Gripen is not a Tornado replacement, it would not have the payload range required.

I am certain that an off the shelves Tornado replacement will be bought, it might not be F-35 though. If the nuclear mission is dropped there is support for Rafale and Grippen E or even tranche 4 Tiffies.

A Tranche 4 Eurofighter would be the right option if nuclear sharing went away. Neither Gripen or Rafale offer anything the Eurofighter wouldn't be able to do.

From what I understand the French were better able to adjust the Rafale design during the nineties when every changed. Because it in essence was a single supplier / customer / government situation. Systems, two man cockpit, radar etc.

The Eurofighter remained the super agile interceptor it was designed for and then Bombs were added and it had to replace the strike Tornado. Which the German (rightfully) objected.

"COLOGNE, Germany — German Air Force chief Lt. Gen. Karl Muellner has appeared to make a new push for the F-35 fighter jet to replace the country’s aging Tornado aircraft in the mid-2020s.

Speaking at an industry conference in Berlin on Wednesday and in an interview with Reuters that day, Muellner said his service needs a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away — a description closely resembling the advertised features of Lockheed Martin’s F-35.

The Air Force is known to favor the F-35 over three other contenders — the F-15E, the F-18 and an upgraded Eurofigher — and Muellner previously has been even more explicit about his desire to get the jets, according to experts in Germany."

From what I understand the French were better able to adjust the Rafale design during the nineties when every changed. Because it in essence was a single supplier / customer / government situation. Systems, two man cockpit, radar etc.

The Eurofighter remained the super agile interceptor it was designed for and then Bombs were added and it had to replace the strike Tornado. Which the German (rightfully) objected.

You understand wrong and what you state doesn't match with reality. Rafale went IOC in 2001 with A2A capability only for the French navy. Even when it went IOC with the French Air Force in 2004 it was still not capable of much A2G work. The Rafale served in Afghanistan in 2007/8 only after a crash program allowed for the fitting of GBU-12 LGBs. The Rafale couldn’t self lase though and required another aircraft equipped with a laser designator pod to assist.

Eurofighter has had a similar growth path so neither jet has appeared to demonstrate greater flexibility than the other. Comparatively it wasn’t until F3 on the Rafale that it exhibited true multi-role performance and similarly the Eurofighter had to get to Tranche 3 before the same multi-role capabilities were really present.

Seems pretty clear to me which has had more export success. I don’t see either adding significantly to their totals with new customers and let’s be honest here, the export customers for either platform are not exactly blue chip first tier air forces…

keesje wrote:

Apart from that the Rafale has a better combat track record record than e.g. the F-35.

If combat record was the primary distinguisher then the F-16 would win every contest, following by the F-15…

Trying to compare combat records is an absurd, and meaningless, comparison…

At least for EF the slow growth in air to ground capabilities was decided by the partner nations, as the main desire was to replace the air defence fighters in the respective Air Forces first. F-104, Mirage F1, F-4F and Tornado F.3 were the types the Tranche 1+2 was supposed to replace. Only in the UK a air to ground mission was then planed with Jaguars to also be replaced by Typhoons. For the rest of the partner nations air-to-ground was not a pressing need and was always supposed to come later. And to be honest the Tranche 2+3s are capable, in Germany it was mainly a problem of training and weapons certification. It is not as if the plane could not drop weapons, but Germany just certified bombs on the ranges in Sweden this year.Not much different to the French, where the old F-8s were the first in line for replacement, followed by Mirage 2000C, followed by Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000N.

Thanks for providing this additional source. One quick clarification I'd like to make is that this is Lt. Gen. Müllner speaking, not Germany (because you wrote "Germany believes..."). Müllner is known to see things differently than the ministry. CDU/CSU, FDP, and the Green Party are currently in coalition talks. As a matter of fact, whether or not to pull out of nuclear sharing is supposed to be on the agenda of these negotiations.

Noted although as the Chief of Staff of the German Air Force there has to be some faith in his ability and judgement.

vr773 wrote:

There is no way that Müllner received authorization from the ministry to make this statement at this time - he also tried (and failed) to stay anonymous.

Ozair wrote:

Not quite. Mullner specifically mentioned and highlighted the F-35 in his presentation. Clearly at an international conference you don't try and stay anonymous by talking about the F-35.

Obviously he didn't try to stay anonymous during his presentation. But he didn't want his name mentioned when he praised the F-35 afterwards. See the article on janes.com that I posted.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

In the end, Suder and her team will be making the decision about replacing (or not replacing) the Tornados.

Sure but clearly the German Air Force is looking at replacement of the Tornado and we know they have requested briefings of three US aircraft.

They are but the fact that Müllner isn't the one who will make the decision is something some users may not know. In fact, von der Leyen and Suder should have a word with him because if it is true that the F-35 is in the lead, he didn't really improve Germany's negotiation position with his little interview.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

In my opinion, there is just too much wrong with the F-35 project to sink any tax money into it.

Can you identify what you consider wrong with the F-35? The jet is meeting it's service availability targets, cost targets and excelling at exercises.

Where do I start? Here are just some symptoms: Singapore, who are known to be a reference customer, delayed their decision by 10 years. The USNavy decided to fly F-18G for ECM/SEAD missions instead of their F-35. The pentagon has found 276 different critical-to-correct defects earlier this year. Over the past couple of years, LM has pushed back literally hundreds of milestones due to technical difficulties. Full safety testing hasn't even started yet and it would be essential given that the F-35 has a tendency to go up in flames:

The next Pentagon error report is due in January - but Trump just fired the head of the DOT&E office so that's another unknown.

But I'm mostly worried about the approach to coding. 8 million lines of C++ code for the airplane and 24 million lines of C++ code for the maintenance and logistics software on the ground and non-US customers are blackboxed so they can't qc it. That's a recipe for disaster.

I think with a project this complex, it would be essential for Germany to wait 5+ years and observe the job the F-35A does for the Dutch, Danish, Norwegians etc. Without these data points a purchase decision would be irresponsible in light of everything that's wrong with the project.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

The money would have to come from the same pool that would be intended for the FCAS development which is why I believe the F-35 purchase would also stop that project, and create political tension with Macron.

FCAS is a long way away, 2040 is the year that keeps getting mentioned. As with the RAAF purchase of the SH to replace the F-111, operating an interim jet could potentially be cost neutral and the acquisition costs would be complete by 2030, long before acquisition of any European jet begins.

If we said the new European fighter was going to cost 30 billion to develop that is shared equally between Germany and France, that is 15 billion from 2022-2040, so potentially less than a billion a year and much of that would likely be post 2030. The German Defence budget is approximately 40 billion per year and any German/Franco jet would likely receive additional outside budget funding (given it is an acknowledged attempt to preserve European technological development and workshare). That doesn't seem too much to ask...

I think it would be a lot more than 30bn. How much did the F-35 development cost? Something around $400bn I believe. Any military procurement decision over EUR 25 million has to be approved by the Bundestag and they will not approve two investments of a similar size for the Luftwaffe within the same legislative period.

"COLOGNE, Germany — German Air Force chief Lt. Gen. Karl Muellner has appeared to make a new push for the F-35 fighter jet to replace the country’s aging Tornado aircraft in the mid-2020s.

Speaking at an industry conference in Berlin on Wednesday and in an interview with Reuters that day, Muellner said his service needs a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away — a description closely resembling the advertised features of Lockheed Martin’s F-35.

The Air Force is known to favor the F-35 over three other contenders — the F-15E, the F-18 and an upgraded Eurofigher — and Muellner previously has been even more explicit about his desire to get the jets, according to experts in Germany."

There a little too much "appeared" "closely resembling" "is known to favor" "previously has been even more explicit" "according to experts" It seems some are pushing the F-35 here, but it ain't German Air Force chief Lt. Gen. Karl Muellner, he's used as a placeholder.

There will be more than enough F-35's around in Europe. It seem the Tornado replacement requirement is bigger, it should be able to fly further, carry more, do more. Two engine, 2 man crew, maybe more similar in size to the to the Chinese J-20.

They are but the fact that Müllner isn't the one who will make the decision is something some users may not know. In fact, von der Leyen and Suder should have a word with him because if it is true that the F-35 is in the lead, he didn't really improve Germany's negotiation position with his little interview.

There is no negotiation position. The cheapest that Germany could acquire the jet is via FMS, which means Germany pays the same price as the US does for the jet, plus an approx. 6% admin fee. It is a standard acquisition contract used by many nations across the globe to acquire US weapons. There is literally no cheaper price than that.

vr773 wrote:

Where do I start? Here are just some symptoms: Singapore, who are known to be a reference customer, delayed their decision by 10 years.

Singapore was never expected to order so soon. They have a young fleet of both F-16s and F-15SGs.

Singapore remains interested in the F-35 joint strike fighter, but does not expect to procure the fifth-generation jet until the 2030 timeframe, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said Sept. 30.

"The F-35s are considered form a timeframe of 2030 and beyond for our defense needs, and in that light we are not in a hurry and we are still evaluating," Ng said here following a meeting of the ASEAN defense ministers. "It's a good plane, but our needs aren't so urgent at this point and time."

The USNavy decided to fly F-18G for ECM/SEAD missions instead of their F-35.

How can they? The USN has yet to go IOC with the F-35C. The plan was that they would always IOC last and will do so in 2019 as planned. The USN has the luxury of an in production aircraft in the SH that allows them to bring on F-35C in a steady stream. Given SH production the USN has the opportunity to use available funding for the increasing number of ship building programs required.

As for the ECM/SEAD role, the USMC have retired their EA-6Bs in favour of an all F-35 fleet and the Next Generation Jammer will be fielding on the F-35 as well as the EA-18G. That aside, the roles are very different between the two jets and the EA-18G is not designed to penetrate high threat airspace. The EA-18G had its IOC in 2009, seven years before the USN was going to IOC with the F-35C.

vr773 wrote:

The pentagon has found 276 different critical-to-correct defects earlier this year. Over the past couple of years, LM has pushed back literally hundreds of milestones due to technical difficulties.

So put this into context. The DOT&E reports come out every year based on aged information. If you track the reports you notice a distinct trend, that the reports use information that, by the time the report is published, have usually been overcome. The DOT&E continued to forecast delays to USMC and USAF IOC but both serviced IOC’ed right at the start of the forecast timeframe. Same with the software, DOT&E said it would be delayed and yet it continues to be released as per the JPO schedule.

vr773 wrote:

Full safety testing hasn't even started yet and it would be essential given that the F-35 has a tendency to go up in flames:

Again it appears that you’re not reading accurate information. The System Development and demonstration program is almost finished which includes all safety testing required.

Lockheed Martin made the announcements and also revealed when they expect to complete air vehicle full 3F and mission systems software development"This 100K milestone marks a significant level of maturity for the program and the F-35 weapons system," said Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager Jeff Babione."We are well positioned to complete air vehicle full 3F and mission systems software development by the end of 2017."

The next Pentagon error report is due in January - but Trump just fired the head of the DOT&E office so that's another unknown.

He didn’t fire the Director, Gilmore retired but the Trump Administration did cut funding to DOT&E because the organisation was redundant. It wasn’t accomplishing the role that was intended.

vr773 wrote:

But I'm mostly worried about the approach to coding. 8 million lines of C++ code for the airplane and 24 million lines of C++ code for the maintenance and logistics software on the ground and non-US customers are blackboxed so they can't qc it. That's a recipe for disaster.

No recipe for disaster given while the software is more detailed the same process has been undertaken for every previous 4th gen exported US aircraft.

vr773 wrote:

I think with a project this complex, it would be essential for Germany to wait 5+ years and observe the job the F-35A does for the Dutch, Danish, Norwegians etc. Without these data points a purchase decision would be irresponsible in light of everything that's wrong with the project.

By the time the Germans need to order, say 2023, the F-35 will likely have over 900 aircraft flying and have flown more hours than the Rafale and Eurofighter fleets combined.

vr773 wrote:

I think it would be a lot more than 30bn. How much did the F-35 development cost? Something around $400bn I believe. Any military procurement decision over EUR 25 million has to be approved by the Bundestag and they will not approve two investments of a similar size for the Luftwaffe within the same legislative period.

I agree it will be more than 30 billion but I was being optimistic.

As for the F-35, no it did not cost 400 billion to develop. That is the cost of the development and acquisition of 2447 jets for US services. The total development was approximately US$55 billion which covered three different airframes, CTOL, STOVL and CATOBAR, the F135 engine including STOVL capability, new stealth coatings, APG-81 radar, MADL datalink etc.

I think the last statements were very clear. EiS in 2025, rules out a FCAS solution.

And what if that happens much later than 2025? What if Germany decides to live with a capability gap or make strategic decisions that would change your assumption; e.g. through pulling out of nuclear sharing? Also, why would that automatically mean that the FCAS would then replace the Eurofighter and not exist in addition? You can't have definitive answers to all these questions. Right now, nobody does.

They are but the fact that Müllner isn't the one who will make the decision is something some users may not know. In fact, von der Leyen and Suder should have a word with him because if it is true that the F-35 is in the lead, he didn't really improve Germany's negotiation position with his little interview.

There is no negotiation position. The cheapest that Germany could acquire the jet is via FMS, which means Germany pays the same price as the US does for the jet, plus an approx. 6% admin fee. It is a standard acquisition contract used by many nations across the globe to acquire US weapons. There is literally no cheaper price than that.

Of course they'll negotiate. Not just pricing but also timing, staffing, maintenance, changes to the airfield, various technical aspects related to hangar and the on-the-ground computing. You're oversimplifying this.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

Where do I start? Here are just some symptoms: Singapore, who are known to be a reference customer, delayed their decision by 10 years.

Singapore was never expected to order so soon. They have a young fleet of both F-16s and F-15SGs.

Then why can I google and find a bunch of articles that state that Singapore had the intention to order much sooner?

Singapore remains interested in the F-35 joint strike fighter, but does not expect to procure the fifth-generation jet until the 2030 timeframe, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said Sept. 30.

"The F-35s are considered form a timeframe of 2030 and beyond for our defense needs, and in that light we are not in a hurry and we are still evaluating," Ng said here following a meeting of the ASEAN defense ministers. "It's a good plane, but our needs aren't so urgent at this point and time."https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/10 ... ime-frame/

That's an article that proves my point that they changed their timeframe to far-away in the future.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

The USNavy decided to fly F-18G for ECM/SEAD missions instead of their F-35.

How can they? The USN has yet to go IOC with the F-35C. The plan was that they would always IOC last and will do so in 2019 as planned. The USN has the luxury of an in production aircraft in the SH that allows them to bring on F-35C in a steady stream. Given SH production the USN has the opportunity to use available funding for the increasing number of ship building programs required.

As for the ECM/SEAD role, the USMC have retired their EA-6Bs in favour of an all F-35 fleet and the Next Generation Jammer will be fielding on the F-35 as well as the EA-18G. That aside, the roles are very different between the two jets and the EA-18G is not designed to penetrate high threat airspace. The EA-18G had its IOC in 2009, seven years before the USN was going to IOC with the F-35C.

My point was that the F-35 was marketed to replace existing airplanes. It doesn't do that in this case and won't anytime soon.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

The pentagon has found 276 different critical-to-correct defects earlier this year. Over the past couple of years, LM has pushed back literally hundreds of milestones due to technical difficulties.

So put this into context. The DOT&E reports come out every year based on aged information. If you track the reports you notice a distinct trend, that the reports use information that, by the time the report is published, have usually been overcome. The DOT&E continued to forecast delays to USMC and USAF IOC but both serviced IOC’ed right at the start of the forecast timeframe. Same with the software, DOT&E said it would be delayed and yet it continues to be released as per the JPO schedule.

I mentioned the reports to illustrate my point that the airplane has problems. Yes, some problems get solved. That doesn't mean that it never had problems. The point is the amount of critical problems and it's not enough to just overcome them "usually".

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

Full safety testing hasn't even started yet and it would be essential given that the F-35 has a tendency to go up in flames:

Again it appears that you’re not reading accurate information. The System Development and demonstration program is almost finished which includes all safety testing required.

Lockheed Martin made the announcements and also revealed when they expect to complete air vehicle full 3F and mission systems software development"This 100K milestone marks a significant level of maturity for the program and the F-35 weapons system," said Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager Jeff Babione."We are well positioned to complete air vehicle full 3F and mission systems software development by the end of 2017."

The next Pentagon error report is due in January - but Trump just fired the head of the DOT&E office so that's another unknown.

He didn’t fire the Director, Gilmore retired but the Trump Administration did cut funding to DOT&E because the organisation was redundant. It wasn’t accomplishing the role that was intended.

Firing and resigning are often synonyms but it doesn't matter. He's created another headless chicken.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

But I'm mostly worried about the approach to coding. 8 million lines of C++ code for the airplane and 24 million lines of C++ code for the maintenance and logistics software on the ground and non-US customers are blackboxed so they can't qc it. That's a recipe for disaster.

No recipe for disaster given while the software is more detailed the same process has been undertaken for every previous 4th gen exported US aircraft.

The software is significantly more complex than in any other airplane. Not giving your customer insights in light of that is a recipe for disaster imo.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

I think with a project this complex, it would be essential for Germany to wait 5+ years and observe the job the F-35A does for the Dutch, Danish, Norwegians etc. Without these data points a purchase decision would be irresponsible in light of everything that's wrong with the project.

By the time the Germans need to order, say 2023, the F-35 will likely have over 900 aircraft flying and have flown more hours than the Rafale and Eurofighter fleets combined.

vr773 wrote:

I think it would be a lot more than 30bn. How much did the F-35 development cost? Something around $400bn I believe. Any military procurement decision over EUR 25 million has to be approved by the Bundestag and they will not approve two investments of a similar size for the Luftwaffe within the same legislative period.

I agree it will be more than 30 billion but I was being optimistic.

As for the F-35, no it did not cost 400 billion to develop. That is the cost of the development and acquisition of 2447 jets for US services. The total development was approximately US$55 billion which covered three different airframes, CTOL, STOVL and CATOBAR, the F135 engine including STOVL capability, new stealth coatings, APG-81 radar, MADL datalink etc.

If you develop it, it would be nice to also buy it. In any case, the numbers are at a level where the German parliament would not sanction funding together with the purchase of dozens of F-35.

Of course they'll negotiate. Not just pricing but also timing, staffing, maintenance, changes to the airfield, various technical aspects related to hangar and the on-the-ground computing. You're oversimplifying this.

What you choose to believe is up to you but any deal conducted as an FMS sale follows the conditions stipulated.

vr773 wrote:

Then why can I google and find a bunch of articles that state that Singapore had the intention to order much sooner?That's an article that proves my point that they changed their timeframe to far-away in the future.

And where in that article does it say Singapore will order soon. Statements made by the Singaporean Ministry of defence tend to outweigh random google articles…

vr773 wrote:

My point was that the F-35 was marketed to replace existing airplanes. It doesn't do that in this case and won't anytime soon.

In that case you are mistaken. The F-35C was never intended to replace the SH in USN service, it was always intended to replace the classic Hornet. The USN will only field approx. 260 or so F-35Cs while the SH fleet is greater at 500+. That was always the USN plan!

vr773 wrote:

I mentioned the reports to illustrate my point that the airplane has problems. Yes, some problems get solved. That doesn't mean that it never had problems. The point is the amount of critical problems and it's not enough to just overcome them "usually".

Of course the F-35 has had problems, all new aircraft have problems but they typically overcome them. The F-35 will be no different and that is the point of the airframe undergoing the most extensive test program in the history of military aviation, to sort out those problems.

So you would prefer I go to a secondary source against information coming straight from the program office? They would have the most up to date information. As for your link, it is talking about OT&E which is not safety testing, it is Operational Test and Evaluation, so testing the airframe in combat scenarios and is talking specifically of software load 3F testing. The jet has already undergone OT&E for all previous software blocks to now.

vr773 wrote:

Firing and resigning are often synonyms but it doesn't matter. He's created another headless chicken.

You can choose to believe that but it a well known fact that DOT&E has not had a functional place in the process for a number of years. They have consumed funding for zero benefit.

vr773 wrote:

The software is significantly more complex than in any other airplane. Not giving your customer insights in light of that is a recipe for disaster imo.

Why, is the RAAF or the RAF or any other customer going to review every line of code to check it? No. Instead all the partner nations participated in the SDD phase, have been trained at Luke AFB and feed results back into the program office to increase capability and reduce risk.

vr773 wrote:

If you develop it, it would be nice to also buy it. In any case, the numbers are at a level where the German parliament would not sanction funding together with the purchase of dozens of F-35.

Sure, but at what point does economic reality set in and Germany/France acknowledge that any jet they produce will come at terrific cost to develop and will likely reach either parity or be just above the F-35 from a capability perspective. Why wait 20 years for a capability you could have today for a third the cost?

There are definite answers to when the Tornado fleet needs to be replaced.

No. Neither the exact time nor whether Germany is getting a 1:1 replacement at all is clear at this point.

That is quite simple, as the dates Italy and Saudi Arabia want to retire their fleets are known and even if you load up on spares before that, after 2030 you would be the last user and need to keep the whole support infrastructure in place for the few remaining German frames.